Schmedlap.com

A weblog of periodic insights from a former know-it-all Infantry Officer

Valuable to whom? And by what rationale?

Posted by Schmedlap at: 6:00 PM on 01 SEP 09 | Comments (36) | Reply to this post

Can anyone tell me what gives a target value? For just about anyone who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan or paid attention to military chatter surrounding those conflicts, the term “high value target” is such a commonly overused term that most of us no longer even pause to think about what it means. Generally, at our targeting meetings, the high value targets were the primary focus (obviously, since the valuation methodology was designed to prioritize the targets). My opinion was always that the valuation methodology was flawed.

Here is an example of why I thought it was flawed. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a very effective leader. We were very wise to kill him. Abu Ayyab al-Masri, the douchebag who replaced Zarqawi, was a far less effective leader. But each one had a similar target value. Why? For every day that al-Masri lived and stayed in command of al-Qaeda in Iraq, I was reassured, because I thought that he was doing nothing to thwart our efforts. When we tried to kick Zarqawi in the nuts, he would raise a leg up and block it. Al-Masri just took it because he was too incompetent to do anything else, in my opinion.

Now, who was next in line behind al-Masri? He probably had a lower target value. He probably should not have, if he was assumed by us to be a more capable leader. What about people who were less loyal to al-Masri than to the next in line? They should have had a higher target value than al-Masri himself, in my opinion.

If the valuation methodology has changed since my ETS, then disregard this post and rock on.

Posted by Schmedlap at: 6:00 PM on 01 SEP 09 | Permalink | Comments (36) | Reply to this post

Comments...

1. slapout9 says:

Schmed, I agree with you that picking targets that way is not going to get you that much. Picking them off one at a time and in sequence just gives them time to recover. That is why in the 5 rings theory you target as many as possible at the same time and attack other targets critical to the HVI's again attack at that same time as much as possible....parralel operations as Warden calls it.

Posted at: 10:28 PM on 09/03/2009 -
2 response to this comment by: myxidlexrose realitymail

2. Schmedlap says:

Agree... but

I agree with what you are saying, but my concern was at an even more fundamental level: who should be targeted? Not when and in conjunction with what/whom. Generally, the highest target value is the target that is most urgent - the highest priority. If that is the case, then our target valuation methodology is (or at least was) flawed. In my opinion, we should have been protecting an adversary as incompetent as al-Masri - not looking to target him with removal, death, etc. (Side note: there are other ways to target someone, but my impression is that we were gunning for all top leadership at the time). Think of Hogan's Heroes. Wasn't there an episode where Hogan actually helped to keep Col. Klink and Sgt. Schultz from losing their jobs because he was afraid that they would be replaced by somebody competent? He had it figured out. Al-Masri was to AQI as Col. Klink was to Stalag 13. Where have all the Bob Crane's gone?

Posted at: 08:55 AM on 09/06/2009 -
1 response to this comment by: KagerYang

3. bismark17 says:

Great point and it illustrates our continual obsession with cutting the head off the snake at the expense of the overall strategic vision. You can see it in our battle with Pablo Escabor or even in domestic law enforcement. It's far better to have some lazy dope smoking goof in charge of your local, fill in the blank, criminal entities than creating a power vacuum for some younger charismatic leader with a cheap on his shoulder to gain control and start problems.

Posted at: 2:30 PM on 09/10/2009 -
2 response to this comment by: skudibu gurtajgrewal

4. Schmedlap says:

Exactly

You said it better than I attempted to.

Posted at: 6:48 PM on 09/10/2009 -
2 response to this comment by: xBhaalx Watrmln

5. myxidlexrose says: